Posts Tagged Dunham Trust
Trust Baron Jeff Dunham Wows Advisors with Dynastic Trusts
Posted by Scott Martin in News on January 30, 2011
Dunham Trust’s multi-generational trusts help advisors lock down accounts nearly forever. As advisors start looking to their own succession plans, nailing down management fees across generations has become a natural sell for the Nevada-based trust company.
Where some independent trust companies have had trouble competing for new accounts, Dunham Trust has found a way to woo increasingly finicky advisors and add $300 million to its platform in the process.
The secret boils down to a 40-second proposition, says CEO Jeffrey Dunham, who runs the $1.2 billion trust company as part of a financial supermarket that includes its own mutual fund company and FINRA-registered broker-dealer.
“If investment advisors paused for 40 seconds and asked their best clients this question, I predict the results will be very successful 80% or 90% of the time,” he explains.
“After that, the only thing left to do is to find the right trust company,” he adds.
Based on its growth rate, Reno-based Dunham has evidently been the right partner for a lot of advisors out there.
Back in 2009, when the industry was still picking its way out of the credit crash, Dunham had $900 million in client assets. Now, the company boasts north of $1.2 billion.
Not counting M&A, Dunham has posted compound organic growth of 16% a year — twice the average in its size bracket and easily triple the performance of slightly smaller trust companies, according to the latest issue of Bernard Garbo’s Trust Performance Report.
The next best thing since…directed trust
Jeffrey Dunham tells us he expects his AUM to double in the next several years.
What’s feeding the excitement, he says, is that the company’s next-generation directed trust arrangements lock down long-term relationships for advisors and clients alike.
“Everyone is talking about directed trust like it’s the best thing since sliced bread,” he explains.
“Directed trusts are nice and we do work with directed trusts, but for advisors, the bigger story in my opinion is capturing customer relationships beyond the current generation.”
Traditional directed trusts have become a hot property with advisors who want to help clients transfer property into a trust without sending their biggest accounts to a potential competitor.
With a directed trust, the advisor retains control of how the assets are invested, as well as the associated management fees, while the directed trust company sticks to the work of running the trust itself.
Thanks to that simple premise, directed trust has roughly doubled its share of the $1 trillion trust business over the last decade and is now a $360 billion piece of the pie, according to data from the Spectrem Group.
However, Dunham notes, although directed trust keeps the assets under an advisor’s control as long as the original grantor is alive, the beneficiaries get the power to reassign management duties after that — and there’s nothing stopping them from picking someone new.
“What happens is that the matriarch passes and the advisor gets a letter from the beneficiary’s advisor thanking him or her for doing such a good job for Mrs. Jones, but here are the wire instructions for delivering the assets,” he says.
When and if advisors get that letter, there’s not a thing they can do about it.
The “direction” in a directed trust only means that the grantor or beneficiary can “direct” the trust to obey a given advisor, not that a given advisor has any power in his or her own right.
Making directed trust multi-generational
The solution is to insert the advisor into the trust documents as a successor trustee, Dunham says.
That’s where that 40-second conversation with an 80% to 90% success rate comes in.
“It’s a simple question to ask the clients with whom you have already spent years building a strong rapport,” Dunham says.
“That question is, ‘Do you want to set us up as the advisor a successor trustee needs to work with? We’d be happy to continue to be involved when you’re gone, if that’s what you want.”
From there, as long as you’ve got the right trust company, the assets can theoretically travel with the advisor for generations — up to 365 years, given Nevada’s dynastic trust rules — and keep generating fees.
And because Dunham already counts incentive trusts — which incorporate restrictions on beneficiary behavior — among its specialties, building that twist into directed trusts was a natural play for the company.
His team is happy to go into greater detail on how the twist on dynastic directed trust works. Click here to contact them.
Succession planning for planners
Granted, not many advisors plan on living that long, but that’s the genius of this twist on the directed trust.
If the trust assigns management rights in perpetuity to the advisor or his or her professional heirs, then those fees become annuitized income to count on for decades if not centuries.
And in a world where the average RIA principal is turning 55 this year and thinking about retirement, that kind of annuity income can double or triple the value of your business when you sell.
Even though M&A activity in the advisory world has gone through the roof, deal valuations have favored sellers who can demonstrate that their business can keep making money without them.
Remember, a purely commission-based RIA maybe goes for 1.3 times annual production, while a book that generates recurring fees can go for 3 times revenue or more. Show a potential buyer that the fees can theoretically keep accruing for centuries, and your business looks even more attractive than ever.
And in the final analysis, why not ensure that whoever you hand-pick to take over your practice can count on these accounts down the road?
“Advisors have done a good job creating a strong relationship with the matriarch or patriarch over the years, but a poor job suggesting that that role should continue after the first generation dies,” Dunham says.
Scott Martin, contributing editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steve Maimes contributed to the research.
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/dunham
Feds Order Trust Firms to “Unbundle” Fees
Posted by Scott Martin in News on May 8, 2010
Trust clients expecting to deduct bundled fees to the limit of the law may need to find providers who can break down fees as the IRS requires.
Two years ago, the US Supreme Court in Knight v. Commissioner held to be eligible to deduct investment management fees in a trust, they cannot be grouped together or bundled with trustee fees in one bill. As a result of this famous case, trust firms in the US are now getting ready to comply with an IRS directive requiring trustee and IM fees to be billed separately for a taxpayer to gain a deduction.
A decade ago, Michael Knight was under the impression that investment management fees for trusts were fully deductible. After all, hiring the best possible advice was part of his fiduciary duty as trustee for a $2.8 million Pepperidge Farm family trust.
He was surprised when the IRS bounced most of the deduction back, leaving the trust with a $4,000 tax bill and gnawing questions about how to account for pure trust expenses (which are fully deductible) versus investment expenses going forward. He took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, only to lose in 2008.
The Supreme Court ordered trustees to split or “unbundle” pure trust expenses from everything else if they want to make sure their accounts get all the deductions they deserve. Two years later, Knight and everyone else in the trust business is still trying to figure out how to obey that order as the IRS delays issuing firm guidance on more than a year-to-year basis.
“You know they just extended the review process again a few weeks ago,” Knight told me. “That means they’ve deferred yet again on making a decision on unbundling. At this point, I wonder if I lost the battle only to win the war,” he added.
“A real pain”
If and when the IRS makes up its mind, trust companies that currently don’t break out their expenses are looking at headaches ahead.
“The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, but I agree that if that’s what’s going to happen, it’s going to be a real pain,” Douglas Blattmachr of Alaska Trust told me.
Other trust companies are steeled for what they see as inevitable. Reno-based Dunham Trust has the accounting systems in place to unbundle its fees as soon as the government tells it to push the button, Tommy Tucker, the company’s president, told me.
“When I checked into it, my operational people said we’re ready to go,” he says.
In fact, there are software fixes out there, says Les Revzon, president of Advisors Institutional, a firm that helps trust companies form in South Dakota and provides back office support for about a dozen trust company clients.
“Most trust accounting systems like SEI, Sungard, Infovisa and HWA can easily break fees down any way the trust company wants,” he says.
While the technology may not be a hurdle, figuring out where to assign every basis point of a previously unified fee may cause some consternation. Firms like Alaska Trust simply charge one all-in fee based on assets and service level, and so, Blattmachr tells me, they’re still working on what an itemized fee breakdown would look like.
Even asking trust companies to do this is pointless, as far as Texas lawyer Carol Cantrell, who argued Knight’s case against the IRS, is concerned.
“I am not sure it can even be done,” she told me. “It would be like asking a real estate broker to unbundle his real estate commission among the various duties he performed,” she added, noting the complexity of all the unique variables involved.
“No two trusts are alike”
Cantrell points to another serious issue: What happens when trust companies disagree in how they split up the basis points, even as far as trusts administered by the same company are concerned?
On the one hand, every trust and every trust company is different, but ultimately the line-item approach will force fee allocations to converge throughout the industry, Cantrell says. That could lead to a competitive race to the bottom, but it’s not likely to happen any time soon.
As things currently stand, there’s no need to unbundle unless the IRS mandates it. The Supreme Court’s issue was not so much with fee transparency but with whether bundled fees are fully deductible. Theoretically, any trust officer could simply charge a wrap fee and accept potentially less favorable tax treatment.
In the meantime, Dunham Trust, for example, is still treating all of its fees—trust and investment management alike—as deductible. However, Tommy Tucker has talked to colleagues who are being told to unbundle and not write off a cent of their investment fees.
Michael Knight originally argued that making sure his accounts were invested in the best possible way was part of his fiduciary duty, and so investment management necessarily qualifies as a fiducuary expense. It’s a great point, and there are efforts in Congress to change the law to accommodate it.
Whether that happens this year is anybody’s guess, given Washington’s distracted and fractious mood. Nobody I talked to expects anything to shake out before the November elections, and even when it does, there could probably be a long wait before new rules go into effect.
As for Knight, he told me he’s really just scratching his head when it comes to the Supreme Court decision.
“The lack of focus on the fiduciary relationship was disconcerting to me,” he says. “Some of these judges have been in private practice. I guess they didn’t do a lot of trustee work.”
Scott Martin, contributing editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steven Maimes contributed to the research.
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/unbundling

